Mr. Khoury says that “[h]ell hath no fury like a Florida judge who receives an improperly formatted brief.” You better believe it. Why on earth would you ignore the format requirements in your court’s local rules? Folks, this just isn’t that hard.

The author of this motion for summary judgment thought the court would either ignore or not notice that the motion and supporting brief were spaced 1-1/2 lines rather than double-spaced. And who’s going to notice longer-than-usual footnotes? Really? Any judge or clerk whose job it is to read, read, and then read some more every dad-gum day.

Seriously, do you want to plow through heavy footnotes? Hands? Didn’t think so. Neither does your judge. Why risk alienating the person you are trying to convince? The stakes are too high to cling to a style of writing that sets you up to lose before anyone reads your motion or brief.

There are other, and much more effective ways, to trim a motion and brief. Editing is the key.

Eliminate any unnecessary word.

Remember that subject and verbs go together.

Use short sentences.

Delete all legalese. Yes, all of it. No excuses.

You can always delete “in order.” Try it – it will not change the meaning in your sentence. These are an example of filler words that just take up space.

Stop using phrases such as “brief of the plaintiff.” Write “plaintiff’s brief” instead.

Never, never, never use long block quotations.

Quote from a court opinion only when the court says it better than you can.

A quick search of this blog will give you tons of editing tips. I promise that you can get your point across with fewer words. It is not the number of words you use that count; it is what words you choose and how you say it. -CCE

Thank you, Craig Ball, for generously sharing your materials. If you have any interest whatsoever in litigation, this is a “must” read. -CCE

I am fortunate to teach electronic discovery and digital evidence in many venues. . . .

All of these entail accompanying written material, so there is a lot of research and writing for the various courses and presentations. Some of my students aren’t lawyers or are law students with the barest theoretical understanding of discovery. I’ve found it’s never safe to assume that students know the mechanisms of last-century civil discovery, let alone those of modern e-discovery. Accordingly, I penned the following short introduction to discovery in U.S. civil litigation and offer it here in case you need something like it, especially if you’re also teaching this stuff. [It’s copyrighted, but feel free to use it with attribution]. . . .

The case did not seem suspicious. A commercial painter claimed he had not been paid for work hired by a building manager. The lawyer took the painter’s case. Unfortunately, under oath, her client admitted that he had faked his evidence with forged invoices.

No one was surprised when the trial court imposed sanctions. The surprise came when the lawyer appealed the case with a badly written brief. The lawyer only made it worse when she submitted her corrected brief to the Court. The judge’s response is a classic benchslap. -CCE

Appellate briefs are not a project for beginners. And, regardless of what you read in this tutorial, you must follow your appellate court rules to the letter.

When your court’s rules tell you that it wants citations done a certain way, it mean exactly that. If the court’s rules say a brief must not go over a certain number of pages, do not even think about “fudging” the rules by changing the font, page size, or line spacing.

You see, all courts, not just appellate ones, write local rules for a reason. Whatever “trick” you may try to skirt around those rules, that court has already seen it and knows it when it sees it again. Courts take their local rules seriously, and so should you.

There are many posts and articles posted on my blog about the strategy and nuances of writing appellate briefs, as well as many excellent books on the subject. This tutorial will help you with the nuts and bolts of writing the bare bones, which is always useful regardless of your writing proficiency.

The appellate brief is undoubtedly one of the most complex pleadings, formatting-wise. Formatting requirements vary from court to court, going so far as to dictate the size and font of your type, your margins and your line spacing. (If you’ve ever had to do a U.S. Supreme Court brief, I feel your pain.) Even before you consider the text of your argument, you have to wrap your head around which pages have which style of page numbers, whether you must furnish a table of authorities, and how you have to deal with any appendices or references to the record. . . .

A litigant that squeezed multiple words together and resorted to abbreviations didn’t satisfy word limits in its briefs and won’t be able to pursue its appeal, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The appeals court tossed the patent appeal by Pi-Net International in an April 20 order (PDF). How Appealing links to the opinion and a story by Law360 (sub. req.), which dubbed the creative wording ‘a trick straight out of high school English class.’ . . .

* * *

On appeal, JPMorgan objected to Pi-Net’s first brief, saying it attempted to evade the 14,000 word limit by deleting spaces between various words and squeezing them together, according to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit offered an example: One case citation consists of 14 words, but Pi-Net squeezed them together to make them into one word. . . .

Acronyms continue to bedevil the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Parties before the court are advised in circuit rules to avoid little-known acronyms; lawyers who didn’t heed the advice were called out in a 2012 opinion. Now the clerk’s office is doing its part to police the briefs. . . .

If there are rules for or against using any type of technology in a courtroom, you will normally find the court’s preference in its local rules. Courts don’t write local rules just for fun. They mean it when they say they don’t like something. If your court clearly states in its local rules that certain types of technology are not tolerated, don’t temp fate by assuming that you will be the exception.

Please note the comments at the end of the article. There is more valuable information about other court rules. -CCE

There are countless ways that an iPhone and iPad can be useful to an attorney while in court — whether you are at counsel table or just monitoring proceedings from the cheap seats in back. I often use my iPhone to look up a statute, check my calendar, get some information from an email, or remind myself of the name of another attorney in the courtroom. I often use my iPad to look at a case cited by an opponent, review the key part of an exhibit or transcript, or take notes. But you cannot do any of this unless the court lets you use electronic devices in the courtroom. I remember a time many years ago when the Eastern District of Louisiana did not allow any cell phones, even if turned off, and if my Palm Treo was still in my pocket, I had to walk back to my office, a few blocks away, and leave it there. Many courts are now more lenient, but attorneys should not just assume that it is okay to plan to use an iPhone and iPad in court. Instead, it is wise to first determine if there is an applicable court rule on the issue.

I write about this today because Ray Ward, an appellate attorney at my law firm, has a case that is soon set for oral argument before the U.S. Fifth Circuit, and in connection with that case, yesterday he received a notice from the Fifth Circuit of a new policy on electronic devices in the courtroom. Ray wrote about the notice (and attached a copy) in this post on his Louisiana Civil Appeals blog. In short, you can now have an iPhone or iPad in the courtroom, but it must be turned off unless you are presenting argument or at counsel table. And even then, you cannot take pictures or video, nor can you use social media. . . .

Alameda County, Butte County, Calaveras County, Contra Costa County, El Dorado County, Fresno County, Humboldt County, Imperial County, Kern County, Kings County, Lake County, Lassen County, Los Angeles County, Madera County, Marin County, Merced County, Monterey County, Napa County, Nevada County, Orange County, Placer County, Riverside County, Sacramento County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, San Francisco County, San Joaquin County, San Luis Obispo County, San Mateo County, Santa Barbara County, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz County, Shasta County, Siskiyou County, Solano County, Sonoma County, Stanislaus County, Tulare County. Tuolumne County, Ventura County, and Yuba County. -CCE

The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be finalized sometime in September. -CCE

Last week, the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Standing Committee”) approved proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the “Duke Rules Package,” addressing Rules 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, and 34 and a rewritten version of Rule 37(e), addressing preservation. The proposed amendments were approved with only two revisions to the proposed Committee Notes for Rules 26(b)(1) (encouraging consideration and use of technology) and 37(e) (clarifying the role of prejudice in subsection (e)(2) of the proposed rule). Meeting minutes reflecting the precise changes to the Committee Notes are not yet available, although the text of the rules as adopted was published in the Standing Committee’s meeting Agenda Book, available here.

The next stop for the proposed amendments is the Judicial Conference, which will consider the proposed amendments at its meeting in September.

[A] new Ninth Circuit decision about the scope of expert discovery in federal court caught our attention. The decision in Republic of Ecuador v. Mackay, No. 12-15572 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2014) poses the question: where the expert has served both as a confidential advisor to counsel and as a testifying expert, may counsel withhold documents shared with the expert by asserting an opinion work product objection? The short answer is no—documents from testifying experts must be produced unless protected by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4).

Please note that the 2014 amendments to Oklahoma’s Workers’ Compensation Court Rules are not effective until January 31, 2014. –CCE

The Court Rules of the Workers’ Compensation Court as amended and approved by that Court on December 20, 2013, having been submitted to this Court for its consideration, are hereby approved. The rules are for official publication and shall become effective on January 31, 2014. The rules as amended shall be published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal three times. By today’s adoption of these rules, submitted by the Workers’ Compensation Court, this Court neither indicates what meaning should be ascribed to them in any given application nor settles their validity against challenges that may be launched on constitutional or statutory grounds, federal or state.

On December 19, 2013 the Supreme Court of Nevada issued an order amending NRCP 30 and 34. These amendments take effect March 1, 2014. This order in ADKT 0487 partially disposes of a multitude of proposed changes to Nevada’s discovery rules. ADKT 0487 remains open, meaning other changes are still possible in the future.

Today’s brief comes from a criminal appeal filed in the Seventh Circuit. A number of things about it attracted my attention. First, it is a brief that the filing lawyer (allegedly) paid a brief writer $5,000 to draft for him. Second, it is an appeal from a decision by the Hon. Chief Judge Joe Billy McDade of the Central District of Illinois, and I don’t believe that Judge McDade is capable of error (though I may be biased). And third, the lawyer who filed the brief was sanctioned for failing to show up for oral argument on it (he said that he was up all night vomiting and didn’t feel well enough to go to court). Though I have great sympathy with feeling ill prior to an oral argument before the Seventh Circuit, it does seem wise to show up anyway when the clerk tells you that you have to.

The South Carolina Supreme Court suspended an attorney for repeatedly refusing to follow its explicit rules to maintain and monitor a working email account. This transgression, plus other failures by the Respondent to follow the Court’s orders and rules, led to the attorney’s suspension. The lawyer’s license to practice law was until further order of the Court.

Legal research experts and librarians Sabrina I. Pacifici and Margaret Berkland last updated this site in January 2011. It contains over 1,400 links to state and federal court rules, forms, and dockets.